Sure, but having noone developing given he's getting old and his performance is dropping off is a problem.
List Mgmt. 2025 List Mismanagement and Trading
- Thread starter 1990crow
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Oct 2, 2022
- 6,999
- 9,421
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I'd normally agree with this, but the top SA player has mostly held their draft position for the past few years - no idea if that's a coincidence or a trend.
Us generally having a pick near the top of the draft has probably helped that.
Ok, I have asked this on a number of places but can't get an answer.
If there is an U17 kid tied to a club via FS or Academy, and Tasmania gets the pick of the U17s for their initial squads, who gets preference on the kid?
If there is an U17 kid tied to a club via FS or Academy, and Tasmania gets the pick of the U17s for their initial squads, who gets preference on the kid?
I guess it depends on what mechanisms the AFL uses, when building the Tasmanian team's list.
If players are pre-listed, and not taken through the draft directly, then I guess Tasmania would have preference. However, the kid would almost certainly have to agree to the arrangement, so they could still opt out and end up at their FS/Academy club.
I suspect the AFL will go down a similar path to what they did when GWS & GC joined the competition, back in 2010 & 2011. These clubs were allowed to pre-list some players from their respective zones (e.g. QLD & NT for GC), and were given a raft of 1st round picks to use. If that's the case, then the legacy clubs would still be able to match any Tasmanian bids on their FS/Academy players, just as they can today.
As a general rule, if a kid is eligible for FS/Academy selection by multiple clubs, then it's up to the player to decide which club they will go with. I see no reason why things would be any different with Tasmania.
Here's a BF thread discussing the Gold Coast startup concessions - the first couple of posts are actually more comprehensive than anything remaining on the rest of the internet.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/gold-coast-draft-concessions.489632
That should give you some idea of what to expect when Tasmania is added to the competition.
Again, I don't believe there would be any precedence as far as Tasmania vs legacy FS/Academy rights. The final determination will be made by the kid, as it is today.
GreyCrow
Make me an Admin!
- Mar 21, 2016
- 82,695
- 136,086
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Yeah I think there is the Twomey factor to consider
'' Hey Reidy what are the club looking at at pick 4 and is Sid a chance''
' hey Cal yeah of course Sid is up there in our thinking '
'' hey Reidy what are the club looking at for pick 11 and is Dyson a chance? ''
' yeah Cal of course we hope Dyson gets to us '
- Aug 30, 2021
- 19,387
- 38,360
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Who's on the table? Updated list of 2025 free agents revealed
Almost 100 players are eligible for free agency following list moves during the exchange window
www.afl.com.au
Some interesting names.
So let’s say Schoenberg has a decent year, he’s now a free agent and we could lose him.
Sure he might not, but unless we had some hope that he could why wouldn’t we cut him and create a list spot.
Just reinforces the decision to not cut Smith and make him a rookie instead of a younger player even more baffling. Didn’t we want to hurt Smiths feelings or could Smith have said no?
Who's on the table? Updated list of 2025 free agents revealed
Almost 100 players are eligible for free agency following list moves during the exchange window
Some interesting names.
So let’s say Schoenberg has a decent year, he’s now a free agent and we could lose him.
Sure he might not, but unless we had some hope that he could why wouldn’t we cut him and create a list spot.
Just reinforces the decision to not cut Smith and make him a rookie instead of a younger player even more baffling. Didn’t we want to hurt Smiths feelings or could Smith have said no?
Smith has no choice in the matter. We did it to Mackay from memory, so not sure why we wouldn't do it with Smith. He's behind every other potential defensive player on the list, there's not one that I'd play him ahead of. And that includes giving Murphy a crack down there if injuries forced us to consider Smith.
It just feels like cutting players full-stop while in contract is barely a thing. Probably due to good-will (why would players be encouraged to play for a club that consistently doesn’t stand by previously agreed to contracts?)Who's on the table? Updated list of 2025 free agents revealed
Almost 100 players are eligible for free agency following list moves during the exchange window
Some interesting names.
So let’s say Schoenberg has a decent year, he’s now a free agent and we could lose him.
Sure he might not, but unless we had some hope that he could why wouldn’t we cut him and create a list spot.
Also probably due to cap reasons, in regards to contending clubs (ie not us right now)
- Aug 30, 2021
- 19,387
- 38,360
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
If we did it regularly fair enough but we haven’t.
And it can’t be cap reasons for us.
Besides main point is Smith should have been the one to moved to the rookie list.
Key word above is "consistently", not sure anyone is asking we do it except in fairly rare circumstances. That said, we did it to Brown and Gibbs, so we've not been all that shy the last few years. And we've managed to recruit a few via trade.
To be fair if the club did it once, we’d probably be advocating for them to do it every year haha, “we were willing then so why aren’t we now”?
Agree that Smith should’ve been moved
Was Brown forced?
To be honest we wouldn’t be in this position if the club wasn’t so contract-happy, which is my main list management gripe
- Aug 30, 2021
- 19,387
- 38,360
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
If they ran with a full list every year that we called for it then we’d be asking more than why don’t we do it again
Yep, he was tapped on the shoulder due to his ongoing lower leg issues. His issues were more chronic than Smith though.
I have on reasonable authority that we brought a lot of 2025 salary forward into 2024 to facilitate the ANB, Cumming, Peatling and attempted Luko shopping spree.Who's on the table? Updated list of 2025 free agents revealed
Almost 100 players are eligible for free agency following list moves during the exchange window
Some interesting names.
So let’s say Schoenberg has a decent year, he’s now a free agent and we could lose him.
Sure he might not, but unless we had some hope that he could why wouldn’t we cut him and create a list spot.
Just reinforces the decision to not cut Smith and make him a rookie instead of a younger player even more baffling. Didn’t we want to hurt Smiths feelings or could Smith have said no?
So it wouldn’t surprise me if we then didn’t have the 2024 cap space to delist Smith (which by the rules would have meant his 2025 salary was brought forward into 2024 as well).
If the choice was between (a) getting Peatling and being stuck with Smith on the senior list and Schoenberg as a FA for all time, or (b) missing out on Peatling and delisting Smith - I think we made the right call.
Of course that argument is not a defence of the awful list management that left Smith with a contract for 2025 in the first place.
- Aug 30, 2021
- 19,387
- 38,360
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Thanks for the info but a couple of queries:
Why bring all the contracts forward in the hope you’ll get all of your targets which is unrealistic? Wouldn’t you have them all ready to go and trigger the re-jigging once your target was acquired and Luko was a no pretty early on.
Second we kept Smith and Schoenberg on the list, surely the salary cap impact would be the same if we rookied Smith instead?
Regardless of attempted acquisitions, we should have been bringing forward contract payments just to meet the minimum spend. We should also have left a few hundred k available for flexibility. The underspend isn't lost as it is banked can be and spent the following year, so end result is exactly the same.
First question is a fair question. I can’t really remember now when I was told about some existing contracts being juggled but I’m pretty sure it was between the end of (our) season and the start of trade period. So I don’t pretend to know exactly what happened and when and on what terms.
Nor am I saying that it’s definitely the case that this is the reason for delisting Schoey rather than Smith. Just giving a possible explanation for what otherwise I agree is inexplicable based on what I do know. I accept it’s not solid evidence of the decision making process.
Second question - that may be right actually.
Maybe we are just ****knuckles.
